ha ha ha. i could have posted this question, since we are about to undergo another painful round of
technology proposals.. at an instructional technology department in a major university.
yes, infrastructure always comes first: networks and wired classrooms. but then what?
the model i have been pushing for (for an eternity) is to put our bucks into big software projects
that (hopefully) serve lots of students, over a period of years, both at this university and elsewhere.
creating this kind of software is no small thing, but i do have at least some evidence
that such efforts pay off. we have developed a large grammar reference that serves thousands and
thousands of students all over the world. similarly, we are now targeting a project on state government
that has the potential of serving at least as many.
we have professional developers who partner with faculty to develop web-delivered projects.
but even with that model, the projects that tend to come our way are relatively esoteric,
scholarly, and/or tied to tightly focused research of an individual faculty member: not a bad thing, in and of
itself, but not exactly providing bang for the buck for students.
so our approach is in creating something that provides essential information (and hopefully interactivity) for lots
of students over a period of three or more years; or something that fits a world-class scholarly
niche, which hasn't been replicated thousands of times elsewhere.
what this means is that, to get good material, sometimes we have to go arond the academic
process and not depend on proposals per se. we either have to encourage people we have identified
as ones we can work with to come up with proposals, or we approach a curriculum directly and try to
find a way we can provide significant, added value without going through the usual academic channels.
anyone who works with academics can perhaps identify with the possible advantages of such an approach.
having said all of this, in order to have some semblance of accountability --as much as we have talked
about and implemented alternative models-- we still have to to through the pain of
a proposal process.. another cycle is coming up again, and no one is looking forward to it.
sometimes we joke that we should just pay people to stay away: that payoff would be their proposal award.
just buy 'em TiBooks and be done with it. then we would be free to actually develop content that can be of use to students.
but the truth is, we still need the proposal process: to catch good and develop-able proposals.. but also to see
what is out there, in terms of faculty impetus, good and bad.
but after all is said and done, we can hopefully continue to have the option of following higher muses,
which means working on projects that can actually provide benefit for students. In my experience, such
projects tend to be fun to produce, transparent to use (that is, straightforward UI), and accessible
(at least major parts don't depend on broadband access).
may sound like pie-in-the-sky --and it's not the kind of model that would work without at least some funding for professional development--
but if there's anything i've learned from working with technology over xx years in a university setting it's
that you have to continually re-focus folks on content or they're going to forever be funding newer
infrastructure that just sits there and rots.. while waiting for intelligent use.
my favorite maxim is that to produce quality content, all you really need are two or three talented, dedicated people sitting in
front of three reasonably equipped workstations.. anywhere.
as some in this thread on Slashdot have pointed out, a university can provide
some infrastructure and access for students who don't have alternatives, but increasingly, infrastructure
and access are consumer commodities (notwithstanding the sorry lack of universal broadband access in the US. curses to Big Telcos
and the ineffectual Telecommunictions Act of 1996).
we should concentrate on delivering content. and we should continue talking
about that to anyone who will listen.
Slashdot Mirror
ha ha ha. i could have posted this question, since we are about to undergo another painful round of technology proposals .. at an instructional technology department in a major university.
.. another cycle is coming up again, and no one is looking forward to it.
.. but also to see
what is out there, in terms of faculty impetus, good and bad.
.. while waiting for intelligent use.
.. anywhere.
yes, infrastructure always comes first: networks and wired classrooms. but then what?
the model i have been pushing for (for an eternity) is to put our bucks into big software projects that (hopefully) serve lots of students, over a period of years, both at this university and elsewhere. creating this kind of software is no small thing, but i do have at least some evidence that such efforts pay off. we have developed a large grammar reference that serves thousands and thousands of students all over the world. similarly, we are now targeting a project on state government that has the potential of serving at least as many.
we have professional developers who partner with faculty to develop web-delivered projects. but even with that model, the projects that tend to come our way are relatively esoteric, scholarly, and/or tied to tightly focused research of an individual faculty member: not a bad thing, in and of itself, but not exactly providing bang for the buck for students.
so our approach is in creating something that provides essential information (and hopefully interactivity) for lots of students over a period of three or more years; or something that fits a world-class scholarly niche, which hasn't been replicated thousands of times elsewhere.
what this means is that, to get good material, sometimes we have to go arond the academic process and not depend on proposals per se. we either have to encourage people we have identified as ones we can work with to come up with proposals, or we approach a curriculum directly and try to find a way we can provide significant, added value without going through the usual academic channels. anyone who works with academics can perhaps identify with the possible advantages of such an approach.
having said all of this, in order to have some semblance of accountability --as much as we have talked about and implemented alternative models-- we still have to to through the pain of a proposal process
sometimes we joke that we should just pay people to stay away: that payoff would be their proposal award. just buy 'em TiBooks and be done with it. then we would be free to actually develop content that can be of use to students.
but the truth is, we still need the proposal process: to catch good and develop-able proposals
but after all is said and done, we can hopefully continue to have the option of following higher muses, which means working on projects that can actually provide benefit for students. In my experience, such projects tend to be fun to produce, transparent to use (that is, straightforward UI), and accessible (at least major parts don't depend on broadband access).
may sound like pie-in-the-sky --and it's not the kind of model that would work without at least some funding for professional development-- but if there's anything i've learned from working with technology over xx years in a university setting it's that you have to continually re-focus folks on content or they're going to forever be funding newer infrastructure that just sits there and rots
my favorite maxim is that to produce quality content, all you really need are two or three talented, dedicated people sitting in front of three reasonably equipped workstations
as some in this thread on Slashdot have pointed out, a university can provide some infrastructure and access for students who don't have alternatives, but increasingly, infrastructure and access are consumer commodities (notwithstanding the sorry lack of universal broadband access in the US. curses to Big Telcos and the ineffectual Telecommunictions Act of 1996).
we should concentrate on delivering content. and we should continue talking about that to anyone who will listen.